Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...

I have heard that this is wanted for applications other than a  file system.
Right now I was sort of looking for examples of applications that did not
want to use this.  

On 11/24/05 12:51 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> 
>> So the usual IETF thought pattern around profiles is say we have might
>> have profile A and B. Are their clients that want both? Are there
>> reasons a server would only support one? How will this negation and if a
>> server only does A and a client wants B, what will the interoperation be
>> like?
> 
> Let's call that profile "filestore".
> 
> This profile would be a true subset of WebDAV. A server such as Slide
> (to take a real-world example) might want to advertise "filestore" on
> some resources (such as in a FS backend), but not others (such as a
> Tamino XML database).
> 
> A client that would absolutely need the features defined as part of the
> "filestore" would simply refuse to interop with some of the resources on
> the server.
> 
> IMHO that would still be far better than to forbid servers to implement
> useful WebDAV stuff on resources like these (because that's what a MUST
> or even a SHOULD requirement would essentially mean).
> 
> We also should keep in mind that we're in HTTP's area here, because
> we're talking about PUT. We simply can't overrule HTTP here. We *can*
> define a way for servers to advertise that their PUT support fulfills
> certain requirement, so that clients can find out.
> 
> Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 25 November 2005 17:22:20 UTC